The Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained

Bukupedia
Free sample

 The Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained
Read more
Collapse

About the author

 The Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained

Read more
Collapse
Loading...

Additional Information

Publisher
Bukupedia
Read more
Collapse
Published on
Apr 21, 2003
Read more
Collapse
Pages
1121
Read more
Collapse
ISBN
9780787653828
Read more
Collapse
Read more
Collapse
Best For
Read more
Collapse
Language
English
Read more
Collapse
Genres
Body, Mind & Spirit / Unexplained Phenomena
Read more
Collapse
Content Protection
This content is DRM protected.
Read more
Collapse

Reading information

Smartphones and Tablets

Install the Google Play Books app for Android and iPad/iPhone. It syncs automatically with your account and allows you to read online or offline wherever you are.

Laptops and Computers

You can read books purchased on Google Play using your computer's web browser.

eReaders and other devices

To read on e-ink devices like the Sony eReader or Barnes & Noble Nook, you'll need to download a file and transfer it to your device. Please follow the detailed Help center instructions to transfer the files to supported eReaders.
 

This preface outlines the history and options of an editorial undertaking which, since it took shape gradually

over a ten-year period, could naturally not be brought up to date in every detail. I hope that what follows will

answer most of the questions of readers taken aback by such and such an omission or such and such an editorial

decision. My most important concern, however, is that these remarks should help elicit the indispensable

additions and corrections that it is to be hoped will be submitted as time goes on.

To participate in the step-by-step construction of an international dictionary of psychoanalysis

is a strange adventure, marked not only by enthusiasm but also from time to

time by disillusion. The process might well be compared to the education of children, a

realistic view of which (sometimes attributed to Freud) asserts that one may be almost

certain that one’s hopes will not be fully realized. All the same, the years I spent with the

editorial board assigning and patiently gathering in the more than fifteen hundred articles

comprising this work, and the subsequent years preparing all this material for publication,

have been among the most exciting I have known. One reason was the variety

and cordiality of the international connections that the project created; another was the

growing awareness of the vigorous multifacetedness of psychoanalysis as a whole, which

has been evolving for over a century now within so many different nations, languages

and cultures.

The charge of dogmatism, too often leveled at psychoanalysis, simply evaporates in

face of the heterogeneity apparent to anyone who explores the many ways in which psychoanalytic

theory and practice are understood and experienced around the world.

Freud’s metapsychological concepts, which he called ‘‘Grundbegriffe’’— a set of foundations

few in number but solidly anchored—have constantly demonstrated their usefulness,

and they have endured almost unchanged. On the other hand, most Freudian,

post-Freudian or even para-Freudian notions are like so many living organisms—ever

prone to modification, and tending to be forgotten and (sometimes) resurrected; above all,

they are subject to divergent interpretations, reflecting the element of the unforeseeable

that is inevitably present for any analyst who refuses to be tied down by rigid theoretical

models. Such divergences result too from the lessons of clinical practice and the temporary

or permanent changes which that experience imposes on analytic theory; they are the

traces of an empirical inquiry that has continued unabated from Freud’s earliest tentative

explorations to the confrontation with life as it is lived today. The coexistence in this dictionary

of ideas that are oftentimes in contradiction with one another, or that have been

developed in different ways from one continent to another, is testimony to their main characteristic:

they are provisional conceptual tools, and their ephemeral quality indicates that

in psychoanalysis, in one sense at least, everything always remains to be discovered, for the

questions asked are forever being posed anew.

vii

Once the idea of this dictionary had been conceived, based on the principle of a diversity

of viewpoints, I proposed to the publishers, Calmann-Le´vy, that an editorial board be

formed, to be made up of recognized colleagues belonging to French psychoanalytic

schools of differing orientations. I owe a great debt of gratitude to the friends who constituted

that small group: Professors Sophie de Mijolla-Mellor, Roger Perron, and Bernard

Golse, joined during the first stages by Dr. Jacques Angelergues. They all made vital contributions

during those crucial early days. It is in their name, moreover, that I shall now

describe our work methods and the route we took.

At a very early stage, thanks to a letter announcing our plan, we won the allegiance of a

number of distinguished psychoanalysts. They became a kind of support committee, and

their prestige lent weight to our approach to potential contributors. Simultaneously, we

solicited the participation and counsel of not a few researchers known to us from our years

as practitioners of psychoanalysis; we were also able to draw on connections built up over

the fifteen-year existence of the International Association for the History of Psychoanalysis

(IAHP). In this way a group of ‘‘advisors’’ was assembled, each of whom was asked to

assume responsibility for a particular segment of our vast field of operations, to suggest to

the editorial committee those concepts or individuals that they felt should absolutely be

included as entries in the panoramic vision of the dictionary, and to identify the authors

who in their view would be the best fitted to write those articles. Their advice was gratefully

received and closely followed.

At the same time, we consulted a good number of indexes of existing psychoanalytic

works in order to reach a first list of concepts; and the IAHP’s Revue Internationale d’histoire

de la psychanalyse (International Review of the History of Psychoanalysis; discontinued

in 1992) was a good source in determining which figures or events were the most frequently

cited. In 1995 and 1996, at our editorial committee meetings, we debated all the

proposed topics thus accumulated, rejecting some and adding others, until we arrived at a

list that, truth to tell, was never completely finalized until the very last days before the

manuscript was delivered. Our choices were made in a collegial spirit, before each of us was

put in charge of a variable number of entries to assign to their respective authors along

with general composition and format guidelines intended to impose some measure of uniformity

on the immensely varied material to be produced.

Since almost a third of the entries commissioned were written in languages other than

French, our commitment to an international approach was indeed undeviating, but there

is no denying that this dictionary was conceived and realized by psychoanalysts trained

and practicing in France. The selection of topics and the content of the entries may well

reveal a somewhat ‘‘French’’ cast of mind. How indeed could it be otherwise? But it is my

sincere hope that foreign readers will adopt an actively critical attitude in this connection,

by suggesting, even contributing, additions. Nothing could be more in tune with our desire

for the widest possible opening onto the world at large.

On the other hand, of course, by opting for a great diversity of contributors we risked

losing a sense of unity, and unity is reassuring. We were quite aware that alert critics were

bound to underscore the lacunae, the inadequacies, even the outright contradictions that

would appear among entries written, say, by a French author, an English or American analyst,

and a colleague from South America—each loyal, moreover, to a particular theoretical

orientation. Similarly, the very topics chosen by our advisors must perforce reflect their

personal judgments rather than ours. Occasionally we editors proposed additional subjects,

but by and large we allowed the advisors’ selection to stand, out of respect for the

agreement we had with them; in any event, it would have ill behooved the editorial board

or the editor-in-chief to claim a knowledge superior to that of the advisors whom we had

chosen as our guides in the matter.

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

viii INTERNATIONAL DI CTIONARY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS

It should be noted that despite our request that authors abide by specified space limitations,

some were so carried away by their attachment to their assigned topic that they

turned in longer contributions than anticipated. In some cases we were obliged to ask for

significant cuts, and I should like to thank all contributors concerned for their goodnatured

and prompt acquiescence to what were surely painful self-amputations. As for

those who found it easier to abide by our space constraints, their contributions were

retained unmodified, at the risk of giving readers the mistaken impression, in view of disparities

of length, that we meant either to downplay or to highlight some particular concept

or individual.

Such editorial changes to submitted manuscript as we made were minor, concerned

chiefly with formal aspects (style, ordering of paragraphs, standardization of references, etc.).

In no case was any kind of censorship exercised by me or by any member of the editorial

board, and no important revision was made without first suggesting it to the author concerned.

It was out of the question that any article be published in seriously modified form

without the writer’s full approval. All articles are signed, and while the editors are responsible

for their publication in the context of this dictionary, they belong in the moral and literary

senses to their individual authors. With this in mind, each contributor had a contract and

was remunerated appropriately, the main purpose being to acknowledge his or her authorship

and to keep our collaboration, friendships notwithstanding, within a clearly legal

framework.

Let me reiterate, as a last point, that this dictionary was created over a period of years.

As with all such enterprises, and especially one involving so many contributors sprinkled

across the globe, it was bound to be overtaken here and there by events, with no realistic

prospect of a complete updating prior to publication.We must hope that such time-related

shortcomings will be rectified as future editions appear.

Why is a dictionary of psychoanalysis needed? Interestingly, it was rather late on in the

history of psychoanalysis that the call for a clearer definition of Freudian terms, whose precision

was threatened by their wider and wider currency, was first heard. The teaching

offered before the Second World War at the Berlin and later at the Vienna Institute of Psychoanalysis

certainly helped show up the need for analysts in training to have to hand a

work that, though not a manual, would furnish precise information on a still vigorously

evolving body of theory. The fact that Freud lent his support to the idea, coupled no doubt

with the anxiety aroused by the defections and misapplications then plaguing the young

discipline of psychoanalysis, provided added impetus.

Thanks to Richard F. Sterba’s Reminiscences of a Viennese Psychoanalyst (Detroit: Wayne

State U. P., 1982), we are acquainted with the circumstances under which the first tentative

attempt to compile a dictionary of psychoanalysis was made:

In 1931, at the suggestion of A. J. Storfer, I had undertaken the task of writing a psychoanalytic dictionary

(Handwo¨rterbuch der Psychoanalyse). Storfer actually began this work with the definition of a few

terms beginning with the letter A, but he found the task too time consuming. He asked me to continue

the work with him, to which I agreed. It was a project for which my experience in 1925 and 1926, working

on the index of the Gesammelte Schriften von Sigmund Freud (Collected Works of Sigmund

Freud) was an enormous help. Soon, however, Storfer lost interest in or courage for the enormous project

and dropped out of our partnership. As ransom for dissolving the partnership, he gave me the

index galleys and typescript pages and all of the eleven volumes of the Gesamtausgabe. I carried on the

work alone. The dictionary was supposed to appear gradually in sixteen issues, of which the first was

published on the occasion of Freud’s eightieth birthday, 6 May 1936.

The preface to the first issue was the facsimile of a letter Freud wrote to me.When I had finished the

letter A of the dictionary, I had given a copy to Anna Freud and asked her to submit it for Freud’s scrutiny.

After a short while I received this letter from Freud, which I quote here in English translation:

‘‘Your ’dictionary’ gives me the impression of being a valuable aid to learners and of being a fine

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

INT E RNA T I ONA L DI C T I ONA R Y O F PS Y CHO ANA L Y S I S

achievement on its own account. The precision and correctness of the individual entries is in fact of

commendable excellence. English and French translations of the headings are not indispensable but

would add further to the value of the work. I do not overlook the fact that the path from the letter A to

the end of the alphabet is a very long one, and that to follow it would mean an enormous burden of

work for you. So do not do it unless you feel an internal obligation—only obey a compulsion of that

kind and certainly not any external pressure’’ (pp. 99–100; Freud’s letter translated by James Strachey,

Standard Edition, Vol. 22, p. 253).

In the wake of this first effort, and very soon in the case of North America, there

appeared several dictionaries, or lexicons presenting select passages from Freud’s writings,

designed to help define psychoanalytic concepts for analysts in training in the institutes;

some went further, offering explanations meant to make psychoanalytic theory more accessible

to the general reader. Important works falling under this general rubric are the

Glossary of Psycho-Analytical Terms published under the editorship of Ernest Jones in 1924,

a harbinger of the Standard Edition; the lists generated by the French Commission Linguistique

pour le Vocabulaire Pschanalytique in 1923-24; or the New German-English Psycho-

Analytical Vocabulary of 1943. It is also well worth citing the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis

edited by Ludwig Eidelberg (New York: Free Press, 1968) and Charles Rycroft’s idiosyncratic

Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis (London: Nelson, 1968).

In France, the initiatives of Daniel Lagache began as early as the 1950s, with the start of

a dictionary in installments published in Maryse Choisy’s journal Psyche´, and they culminated

in that matchless work tool, the Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse, by Jean Laplanche

and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis (Paris: PUF, 1967; translated as The Language of Psycho-

Analysis, London: Institute of Psycho-Analysis/Hogarth, 1973). It should be borne in

mind, however, that Laplanche and Pontalis’s in-depth study was restricted for the most

part to the concepts of psychoanalysis as developed in Freud’s work alone.

Later French dictionaries of psychoanalysis were also intentionally circumscribed in one

way or another. Pierre Fe´dida’s Dictionnaire abre´ge´, comparatif et critique des notions principales

de la psychanalyse (Paris: Larousse, 1974) is a case in point. Some works pointed up

the theoretical contributions of Jacques Lacan, such as the Dictionnaire de la psychanalyse

edited by Roland Chemama and Bernard Vandermersche (Paris: Larousse, 1993; expanded

edition, 1998), or Pierre Kaufmann’s L’Apport freudien (The Freudian Contribution). Kaufmann’s

book (Paris: Bordas, 1993) is presented as a psychoanalytic encyclopedia rather

than a dictionary, which would presumably be more condensed. In fact, despite the inclusion

of a few biographical sketches, very brief, and limited to the main figures in the history

of psychoanalysis, the work does not display the diversity and world-wide scope what we

have pursued in our own dictionary. Nor does it deal with the principal concepts developed

on the basis of practices derived from or collateral to psychoanalysis, such as those of Jungian

analytical psychology.

Outside France, noteworthy titles—among many others which we have made no

attempt to inventory here—include A Dictionary of Kleinian Thought by Robert K. Hinshelwood

(London: Free Association Books, 1989), the Bibliographisches Lexicon der Psychoanalyse

of Elke Mu¨hlleitner (Tubingen: Diskord, 1992), and Dylan Evans’s Introductory

Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (London: Routledge, 1996), the first restricted to

Kleinians, the second to members of the Vienna Society between 1902 and 1938, and the

third to the thought of Jacques Lacan. More recently, in the United States, Burness E.

Moore and Bernard D. Fine have edited Psychoanalysis: The Major Concepts (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1995), which elaborates in a distinctly encyclopedic manner on some

forty major psychoanalytic themes.

The present dictionary differs markedly in fact from all its predecessors in the field,

including Elizabeth Roudinesco and Michel Plon’s Dictionnaire de la psychanalyse (Paris:

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

x INTERNATIONAL DI CTIONARY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS

Fayard, 1997) or the collected psychoanalytic articles of the French Encyclopaedia Universalis

(1997).

It is the only work that presents not just some nine hundred concepts or ideas, but also

three hundred and sixty biographies of eminent psychoanalysts from around the world,

one hundred and seventy of their most noted works, and fifty countries where psychoanalysis

has taken root; more than a hundred entries deal with events that have punctuated the

history of psychoanalysis in its multifarious lines of development; the institutions that

have embodied that development are likewise described in detail, as are the contributions

of movements, such as analytical psychology and individual psychology, which stemmed

from psychoanalysis.

A chronological approach was a guiding principle, and even if it could not be followed

in every single entry, our contributors were urged to hew fast to a historical perspective.

Only thus can theoretical choices be relativized so that they lose their rigidly fixed character

and reveal themselves to be variable according to time and place. By offering a dais to a

large number of psychoanalysts of different theoretical and practical persuasions, moreover,

we hoped to arrive at a kind of overall picture that was contradictory precisely

because it was alive—a candid shot, as it were, of psychoanalysis today, complete with the

more or less conflict-prone schools in the context of which it has developed up to now

and, it is to be hoped, will continue to evolve in the future. Our intention was to distinguish

our dictionary as clearly as possible from works written by a small number of collaborators

expressing the point of view of a particular psychoanalytic group or tendency.

All the same, it must be understood that we believe unequivocally that psychoanalysis

was conceived and has developed in the context of Freudian ideas. The reference to Freud

is cardinal in this work, and other theoretical and practical options have a place here only

insofar as they have a direct or indirect, temporary or permanent connection with Freud,

with Freud’s history, or with the history of the psychoanalytic movement that Freud

founded.

Psychoanalysis was created as the twentieth century opened, and it developed along

with that century, affecting its historical, cultural and moral character by reason of the new

way of thinking it represented. The reader should not therefore be surprised to find entries

here whose subjects are writers, philosophers—even a literary movement like Surrealism,

or such events as the First and Second World Wars. But in such cases we chose not to offer

a detailed and biographical or historical account, or a complete account of an individual’s

work, but rather to confine ourselves to the subject’s relationship to psychoanalysis. This

also makes it possible, however, to trace the ways in which the sound and fury of the world

reverberated within psychoanalysis, causing it to change or readapt. It should be remembered,

too, that if psychoanalysis has a closer intimacy with the individual’s psychic suffering

than do other approaches, this is attributable to the intense personal involvement of

those who helped refine its powers; for this reason we paid particular attention to the biography

of the pioneers and their chief successors. Readers who find certain biographical

details merely anecdotal are urged to bear in mind that no theoretical proposition should

be entirely detached from the conscious and unconscious life of its originator, and this

goes for Freud as much as for anyone else. We have nevertheless refrained from any hasty

or ‘‘wild’’ interpretations of individual figures: nothing could be more radically at odds

with the psychoanalytic approach than to pass judgment on a human being in just a few

lines.

It was indeed never the mission of this dictionary to rank individuals or tendencies. Of

course, it is impossible to avoid assuming criteria of worth, but even these cannot claim to

exist sub specie aeternitatis; rather, they are mainly reflections—setting aside the enthusiasm

of a particular author for his or her subject—of the spirit of the times or of geogra-

Fayard, 1997) or the collected psychoanalytic articles of the French Encyclopaedia Universalis

(1997).

It is the only work that presents not just some nine hundred concepts or ideas, but also

three hundred and sixty biographies of eminent psychoanalysts from around the world,

one hundred and seventy of their most noted works, and fifty countries where psychoanalysis

has taken root; more than a hundred entries deal with events that have punctuated the

history of psychoanalysis in its multifarious lines of development; the institutions that

have embodied that development are likewise described in detail, as are the contributions

of movements, such as analytical psychology and individual psychology, which stemmed

from psychoanalysis.

A chronological approach was a guiding principle, and even if it could not be followed

in every single entry, our contributors were urged to hew fast to a historical perspective.

Only thus can theoretical choices be relativized so that they lose their rigidly fixed character

and reveal themselves to be variable according to time and place. By offering a dais to a

large number of psychoanalysts of different theoretical and practical persuasions, moreover,

we hoped to arrive at a kind of overall picture that was contradictory precisely

because it was alive—a candid shot, as it were, of psychoanalysis today, complete with the

more or less conflict-prone schools in the context of which it has developed up to now

and, it is to be hoped, will continue to evolve in the future. Our intention was to distinguish

our dictionary as clearly as possible from works written by a small number of collaborators

expressing the point of view of a particular psychoanalytic group or tendency.

All the same, it must be understood that we believe unequivocally that psychoanalysis

was conceived and has developed in the context of Freudian ideas. The reference to Freud

is cardinal in this work, and other theoretical and practical options have a place here only

insofar as they have a direct or indirect, temporary or permanent connection with Freud,

with Freud’s history, or with the history of the psychoanalytic movement that Freud

founded.

Psychoanalysis was created as the twentieth century opened, and it developed along

with that century, affecting its historical, cultural and moral character by reason of the new

way of thinking it represented. The reader should not therefore be surprised to find entries

here whose subjects are writers, philosophers—even a literary movement like Surrealism,

or such events as the First and Second World Wars. But in such cases we chose not to offer

a detailed and biographical or historical account, or a complete account of an individual’s

work, but rather to confine ourselves to the subject’s relationship to psychoanalysis. This

also makes it possible, however, to trace the ways in which the sound and fury of the world

reverberated within psychoanalysis, causing it to change or readapt. It should be remembered,

too, that if psychoanalysis has a closer intimacy with the individual’s psychic suffering

than do other approaches, this is attributable to the intense personal involvement of

those who helped refine its powers; for this reason we paid particular attention to the biography

of the pioneers and their chief successors. Readers who find certain biographical

details merely anecdotal are urged to bear in mind that no theoretical proposition should

be entirely detached from the conscious and unconscious life of its originator, and this

goes for Freud as much as for anyone else. We have nevertheless refrained from any hasty

or ‘‘wild’’ interpretations of individual figures: nothing could be more radically at odds

with the psychoanalytic approach than to pass judgment on a human being in just a few

lines.

It was indeed never the mission of this dictionary to rank individuals or tendencies. Of

course, it is impossible to avoid assuming criteria of worth, but even these cannot claim to

exist sub specie aeternitatis; rather, they are mainly reflections—setting aside the enthusiasm

of a particular author for his or her subject—of the spirit of the times or of geogra-

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

INT E RNA T I ONA L DI C T I ONA R Y O F PS Y CHO ANA L Y S I S

phical context. The articles concerned with Jung or Jungian notions were thus assigned to

colleagues belonging to the societies of analytical psychology. Matters Adlerian were

handled likewise. And topics relating to a Sa´ndor Ferenczi, Melanie Klein, Jacques Lacan or

Franc¸oise Dolto were entrusted to writers close to them and their ideas. All is not told—

and gossip hounds are likely to be disappointed. In our view, a dictionary such as this is

neither holy writ nor pamphlet, but a kind of mirror held up to the time of its writing,

bearing all the signs of that time’s fashions and conformities, and addressed to future generations,

who with the benefit of hindsight will assuredly be able to read far more between

the lines than is discernible to us.

With respect to our handling of Freud’s works, we decided that the best way to avoid

entanglement in the thickets of editions and translations around the world was to adopt as

our basic system of reference the chronological bibliographical tags updated in Ingeborg

Meyer-Palmedo and Gerhard Fichtner’s Freud-Bibliographie mitWerkkonkordanz (Frankfurt

on the Main: S. Fischer, 1989). Our ‘‘Freud Bibliography’’ lists works of Freud according

to this system; in each case the title is given in German and in English, along with a

reference where applicable to the GesammelteWerke and to the Standard Edition. It should

be noted that we list only those works of Freud that are mentioned in the dictionary. Similarly,

the ‘‘General Bibliography’’ is confined to works referred to in the text, and is in no

sense intended to replace Alexander Grinstein’s Index of Psychoanalytic Writings (New

York: International Universities Press, 1956-75).

‘‘A strange adventure,’’ I wrote at the beginning of this preface, and the reader will perhaps

have surmised on the basis of the above description of our modus operandi that the

going was not always painless, or without its conflicts and clashes, even its moments of

despondency. Yet we were always boosted by encouraging words from friends and colleagues

who had got wind of our project in its earliest days and, from near or far, followed its

progress throughout. Nor did we ever relinquish the conviction that this dictionary would

answer a clear need in the analytic profession and among students or researchers who

would find it to be a tool unlike any produced thus far.

If there is such a thing as a ‘‘language of psychoanalysis,’’ albeit one considered opaque

at times by its critics, we are confident that the present work will show it to be neither a

wooden nor a dead language. It has grown up from roots shared by all psychoanalysts, but,

as the range of our entries shows, from these common origins have sprung a variety of

‘‘dialects.’’ Each of them—Adlerian, Jungian, Rankian, Ferenczian, Lacanian, or Bionian—

has developed in its own way, and inevitably affected the others in the process. Each, to a

greater or lesser degree, has weathered conflict, or eclipse and revival—testimony to a salutary

psychoanalytic ‘‘heteroglossia,’’ and to the kind of freedom that stimulates thought.

The infinite variety of human beings, the diversity of their personal histories and the complexity

of a psychological approach that encompasses the dimension of the unconscious

can never be forced into the mold of a hypostasized language or submit to the dictates of

some Big Brother preparing the ‘‘Newspeak’’ dictionary.

You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We’re destroying

words—scores of them, hundreds of them, every day.We’re cutting the language down to the bone. . . .

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall

make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every

concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined.

. . . Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller (George

Orwell, 1984. London: Secker andWarburg, 1987 [1949], pp. 53–54, 55).

Alea jacta est. This work is now in the hands of its readers. They are invited to handle it

as they will. To contribute notes or offer corrections. To convey to us their critical thoughts

and to suggest topics they would like to see dealt with in the future. Such active expressions

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

xii INTERNATIONAL DI CTIONARY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS

of interest would be the best possible reward for me personally and indeed for all those

who have lent their hand over these last years to this portrait of psychoanalysis in the world

of today.

ALAIN DE MIJOLLA

PARIS, JUNE 19, 2001

I am thrilled and honored to be a part of the initiative Thomson Gale (represented by

FrankMenchaca as well as the highly-effective and ever-smiling Nathalie Duval) has undertaken

to share this Dictionary, whose production I directed in France, with an American

audience. This enormous and very difficult work has been successfully completed by a

highly-motivated team, including (amongst the many others whom I shall not name):

Rachel J. Kain, Rita Runchock, and Patricia Kamoun-Bergwerk; the remarkable American

advisors Edward Nersessian and Paul Roazen who reviewed all the texts; Nellie Thompson,

whose aid was invaluable at various stages in the project; Matthew von Unwerth, who compiled

the ‘‘Further Readings’’ sections, and above all, the translators and revisers who fulfilled

the difficult task of rendering texts into English that had for the most part been written

by authors from France, Spain, Germany, and Portugal.

These translators encountered difficulties raised by more than just the languages in

which the authors wrote about these psychoanalytic concepts or biographies they were

charged with. Despite a common foundation stemming directly from Freuds ideas, divergent

conceptions leading them to be grasped from slightly more theoretical versus clinical

viewpoints, depending on where one is standing, were necessarily in evidence—a fact that

had to be both respected and, at the same time, made more accessible to American readers.

However the sheer number of authors and the scope of their starting-points, as much

national as related to different schools of psychoanalysis, nonetheless help us to avoid any

sort of monolithic thinking, and beckon the reader to go beyond his or her reading of these

dictionary entries with research that deepens their insight. For example, we have avoided

repeating the precise definitions of terms cited by specific entries that the dictionary

defines elsewhere. We have instead trusted that this dictionary would avail itself from page

to page, concept to concept, psychoanalyst to psychoanalyst, to the likings of the systematic

research or slightly poetic wanderings that constitute the most effective, or the most enlivened,

approaches to getting to know a work such as this.

In the Preface to the French edition I offer detailed ‘‘directions for use’’ to readers of this

work, so there is no need to revisit that subject. Let me rather use the few lines afforded me

here to reiterate the particular importance of this American edition—in my eyes at any

rate. It speaks English, like most of the countries in the world today, and English is, of

course, an indispensable vector for any thought with claims to universality. Since its humble

beginnings in Vienna, psychoanalysis has obviously had a global impact not only in the

clinical and therapeutic realms, but also in the arenas of culture and thought. The twentieth

and early twenty-first centuries have been marked by ideas whose development has deeply

affected the existence of each and every one of us. Our sexual and political lives, our

xv

morality, our ways of understanding our relationships with others-all bear the unmistakable

stamp of Freud’s legacy. By virtue of his family background and his many-sided education

and training, Freud ended up at the point of intersection of cultural inflluences out of

(and against) which psychoanalysis was gradually forged. This dual process, by no means

painless, ensured the new discipline a position and multiple functions, which, as we may

now plainly see as we look back over the years, have themselves been subject to continual

evolution.

A procedure for psychopathological investigation, a method with therapeutic aims, or a

conceptual apparatus to account for the workings of the psyche (l esprit) in its external productions

as well as its corporeal bonds—out of this ideological and scientific past which Freud

conveyed, psychoanalysis has, in turn, modified the conditions of research into the most varied

domains of knowledge and none, today, may pretend to be totally beyond its influence.

No matter what position pharmacology assumes, (and we must believe in its progress),

the encounter with the mentally ill, the listening to their discourse and the decryption of

their delusional sayings in order to glean their secret message, like the patient reestablishing

vanished relational capacities, will forever remain an affair that takes place between two

human beings, from one psychical apparatus to another. The hope that inspired Jung and

Bleuler when they first took responsibility for the schizophrenics in the Burgho¨ltzi Asylum

was as great as their disappointment. This phenomena repeated itself always and everywhere:

Psychoanalysis began by appearing as ‘‘The Solution’’ to the unsolvable problems of

mental illness. The example of America, beacon of enthusiasms and of disappointments, is

illustrative in this respect—even more spectacularly so in that the all-powerful American

Psychoanalytic Association permitted only doctors, psychiatrists for the most part, to join

its ranks for the better part of 60 years.

Such is not the case today. Yet even though this puncturing of belief-systems might

make us think of a destructive tidal wave, this investigatory drive remains—a drive that

mobilizes psychoanalysts for their research into new clinical terrain, as they attempt to

shed light on and treat ever more diverse and grave pathological conditions. One day, no

doubt, new psychopathological conceptions will effect another exploratory synthesis of the

psyche and its dysfunctions, thereby authorizing new avenues of approach that will once

again appear to us as nothing short of miraculous. But in the meantime, the patient and

modest relational exchange, which underpins the psychoanalytic approach to patients in

the psychical domain, remains todays most developed adjuvant therapy, whose evergreater

efficacy and more precise pinpointing may be looked for in the progress of the neurosciences,

neurobiology, genetics or immunology.

Although it continues to furnish, as Freud suggested, a ‘‘yield of knowledge’’ for other

scientific domains, psychoanalysis gains its creative power and persistent originality from

its position on the margins, due to the fact of its being the ‘‘other’’ that cannot be integrated

into these disciplines, including literature, history, philosophy, etc. It is the ‘‘other’’

which disrupts through its theoretical a priori of a subversive discourse subjacent to all

manifest discourse and which, (as the example of Freud himself proves), can never forget

that its own words, as well as its thoughts, are condemned to expressing double-meanings,

to contradiction, to interrogation; and which could therefore never be thought of as a finished

product, a self-enclosed theory, still less a dogma.

The turbulent political events of recent years have refueled the diffusion of psychoanalysis

into territories that had previously been closed to it. Therefore both theory and practice

will have to rub shoulders with new cultures, languages and other philosophical, religious,

medical and scientific traditions. No doubt they will thereby come to brave new storms,

know new successes and, fleeting declines. But we must always hope they will be capable of

enriching themselves with these various contributions. For only thus is the never-ending

PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION

xvi INTERNATIONAL DI CTIONARY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS

research into the human psyche and its creations embarked upon anew—a quest that constitutes

the psychoanalysts true place in the world of yesterday, today and, for an unforeseeable

time still, tomorrow.

Once again, I am particularly pleased and proud that the American edition of this dictionary

is contributing, more so than all those that came before it, to extending and diffusing

this perpetual renewal of Freudian thought throughout the world.

ALAIN DE MIJOLLA

PREFACE

research into the human psyche and its creations embarked upon anew—a quest that constitutes

the psychoanalysts true place in the world of yesterday, today and, for an unforeseeable

time still, tomorrow.

Once again, I am particularly pleased and proud that the American edition of this dictionary

is contributing, more so than all those that came before it, to extending and diffusing

this perpetual renewal of Freudian thought throughout the world.

ALAIN DE MIJOLLA

 

©2019 GoogleSite Terms of ServicePrivacyDevelopersArtistsAbout Google|Location: United StatesLanguage: English (United States)
By purchasing this item, you are transacting with Google Payments and agreeing to the Google Payments Terms of Service and Privacy Notice.